Major Corporations Changing Statements on Safety of Fluorides

SOURCE: The Lillie Center | April 28, 2011

Ellijay, GA – In a development certain to gain the attention of risk managers at water utilities around the world, key toothpaste manufacturers and other organizations are changing how they portray the safety or risks of fluorides and water fluoridation.

Colgate-Palmolive is now selling an unfluoridated toothpaste for infants and toddlers. The label on the brightly colored, child-friendly packaging boldly states, “Fluoride-free. Safe if swallowed.”

Orajel toothpaste is similarly now available as a toddler training toothpaste without fluoride. Information at the product website says it is “fluoride-free so it’s safe if swallowed when used as directed.”

GlaxoSmithKline’s Aquafresh brand training toothpaste for babies and children under two years old, depicted in recent television commercials, is labeled “Fluoride-free toothpaste. Safe to swallow.”

Daniel G. Stockin of The Lillie Center Inc. in Georgia, a firm working to end water fluoridation, says, “If these kinds of toothpastes are now advertised as being ‘safe’ without fluoride, what does that say about safety previously for the millions of young children who used toothpaste with fluoride?”

He also adds, “Perhaps the bigger question is, “Why are children told to spit out the fluoride in a pea-sized amount of regular fluoridated toothpaste, but the Centers for Disease Control strangely continues to say it’s safe to ingest the same amount and more, every day, in fluoridated city water?”

Harm from consuming uncontrolled amounts of fluoridated drinking water is drawing increased attention due to a number of recent developments.

Civil rights leaders in Atlanta have called for a halt to water fluoridation. Cities such as Quebec have stopped adding fluoride to their water. A New York City Councilman has introduced a bill to stop fluoridation in New York City. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader has called attention to concerns about total dosing of fluorides from all sources. In February, Tennessee state legislators from both political parties noted growing calls for Fluoridegate investigations in a letter to the state’s health commissioner.

Other corporations and organizations are also weighing in on the issue of fluorides affecting sensitive populations.

Gerber is selling an unfluoridated bottled water so parents of young babies can avoid using fluoridated city water to mix infant milk formula.

Gerber’s website openly states that its water, “is not sponsored or endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics or the American Dental Association.”

The National Kidney Foundation withdrew its endorsement of water fluoridation in 2008, noting in a new position statement that, “Additional research on the risks and extent of fluoride exposure for the potentially susceptible population of [chronic kidney disease] patients with impaired kidney function is recommended.”

The National Research Council’s report on fluorides in 2006 documented that fluoridation commenced decades ago without knowing what fluoridated water would do to kidney patients. The report stated that, “Early water fluoridation studies did not carefully assess changes in renal function.”

In addition to new statements on fluorides from various organizations, fluoride supplement manufacturers are dwindling. According to the American Dental Association’s website, for undisclosed reasons a number of corporations have discontinued production of fluoride supplements in recent years.

According to ADA, fluoride supplements are not recommended for children under six months of age.

The legal implications of all the fluoride-related developments are gaining the attention of law firms.

Kentucky attorney Robert Reeves says, “The story from the Centers for Disease Control that water fluoridation is “safe for all” has now been shown to be categorically untrue. Black Americans and other minorities, kidney patients, babies, diabetics, and seniors are all disproportionately harmed by fluoridation. Citizens are ingesting fluorides from other sources also. The story from fluoride promoters keeps changing. This is why we’re seeing calls for Fluoridegate hearings. We’re witnessing the unraveling of the Fluoridegate scandal and a perfect storm of liability forming here.”

A 1999 criticism of fluoride supplements in the journal Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology addressed growing amounts of permanent “dental fluorosis” teeth staining, stating: “The risk is that noticeable fluorosis will be perceived by the public as a toxic consequence of fluoride ingestion – which, arguably, it is – and there will be a reaction against all uses of fluoride…”

The article also said, “There does not seem to be scientific evidence to support the widespread use of fluoride supplements by young children, even in the absence of fluoride in water.”